December 12, 2006

  • Marc SteinESPN Senior Author

    Shut

      • Senior NBA writer for ESPN.com
      • Began covering the NBA in 1993-94
      • As well covered soccer, tennis and the Olympics

What they're saying on the Allen Iverson grapevine: The Answer has let it exist known that he doesn't want to play in Charlotte.

What they're also saying in front role circles: Iverson's army camp got word to Sacramento and Gold Land that he's not in a rush to relocate to Northern California, either.

What I find myself saying whenever I hear such sentiments: Amazing, isn't it, how quickly some players scare teams off when pretty much none of them possess a no-trade clause?

The Bobcats, let'south face up it, would exist skittish about trading for A.I. even if he welcomed the move, given owner Bob Johnson'southward obvious comfort level with a roster that doesn't pay a single actor more than $five.5 1000000. Although he desperately wants to fill up his edifice and ranks as i of the league's nearly outspoken owners regarding the struggles of small-scale-market teams, Johnson'southward hesitancy to sanction an Iverson deal doesn't surprise anyone. You lot tin safely surmise that the footling human's knack for selling tickets doesn't stand out to the Bobs as much the $39.viii million left on his contract subsequently this season and Iverson's hard-to-handle history.

But here'southward the affair.

Iverson doesn't possess the ultimate hammer. NBA front part sources confirmed Tuesday that his contract does not contain a no-merchandise clause.

In fact, as far as I know, the Lakers' Kobe Bryant is the simply NBA player who has one.

Why?

This simply isn't baseball, where no-trade clauses or partial no-merchandise clauses are routinely built into player contracts … and where the famed 10-and-5 dominion automatically enables veterans with 10 years of service time and five with a player'due south current team to veto trades.

In the NBA, only players with at least eight years of service time and four with the aforementioned team are eligible for a no-merchandise clause.

The problem?

Very few players get to that point with one squad and and so accept the opportunity to negotiate a no-trade clause through free bureau.

Star players similar Iverson, for starters, by and large sign their offset big-money deals well before their 8th season.

Star players like Iverson, furthermore, often sign extensions to those big deals … and NBA extensions do not allow players to add major changes in contract terms, such as a no-trade clause. A player must enter free agency to change major terms in a contract.

That's how Bryant put himself in the rare position to negotiate a no-trade clause. He was a total-fledged unrestricted free agent in the summertime of 2004 and, having merely completed his eighth season and after flirting seriously with the Clippers, signed a new seven-year, $136 million contract with the Lakers which includes a no-trade provision.

Iverson?

Turns out he's apparently never been eligible for a no-merchandise clause, even though this is his 11th season with the same team. His four-yr, $72.four meg extension with the Sixers, which began last season, operates nether the aforementioned main terms -- without a no-trade clause, in other words -- as his previous contract, which he signed before he had viii years in the league.

The league, on pinnacle of that, now has the right to append players who refuse to study to their new teams subsequently trades, post-obit the Alonzo Mourning debacle in Toronto afterwards the Nets swiped Vince Carter from the Raps in December 2004.

However the league'due south dominance in such matters didn't stop the Bobs from quickly abandoning any thoughts of adding Iverson to their quartet of promising kiddies: Emeka Okafor, Adam Morrison, Raymond Felton and Sean May.

The Kings have besides appear that they're no longer bidding for Iverson, even though they have a history of ignoring star players' initial resistance to Sacto (Chris Webber and Artest) and trading for them anyhow.

Iverson, sources say, would welcome a move to either Minnesota or Boston, merely the issues confronting the Wolves and Celtics oasis't inverse. The Wolves don't have a first-circular option to package with the young lead guard Philly covets (Villanova alumnus Randy Foye) and the Celts (so far) can't get Philly to have the daunting step of trading Iverson within its ain division unless information technology includes Al Jefferson and/or Gerald Green in the deal.

My ESPN The Magazine colleague Ric Bucher reported Tuesday night on "SportsCenter" that Iverson is open to an Indiana move too. The Pacers and Denver Nuggets -- presumably another team Iverson would sanction given the presence of Carmelo Anthony -- increased their interest Tuesday and both are better-positioned than the Wolves or Celts to assemble a merchandise Philly likes.

All 4, though, have one thing in common. All encounter their odds increase, no thing what above variables tell us, if Iverson can go along to dissuade the teams he doesn't like from making bids.

Without even having official trade-blocking power.

Marc Stein is the senior NBA author for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here.